from the a-brief-reprieve dept

With Japan announcing a signing ceremony this Saturday for those who negotiated ACTA, it seemed reasonable to think that most of those listed as planning to attend would be signing. Of course, we wondered about the US, the EU and Mexico -- as there have been legal questions and challenges raised to ACTA in all three cases, with Mexico's Congress specifically telling the President it will not ratify the treaty. The EU had also been investigating whether or not ACTA was in line with EU law, and that process has not been completed, so we thought it was premature for the EU to sign onto ACTA.

"The EU has not yet completed its internal procedures authorising the signature, therefore it will not be signing ACTA at this event," the Commission spokesperson said in a statement. "Neither will Mexico and Switzerland, since they did not conclude their domestic proceedings."

"For the EU, the domestic process for signature is that the Council [of Ministers] adopts a decision authorising a EU representative to sign ACTA. Since this required the translation of the treaty in all the EU languages, such decision has not yet been adopted. It may still require a couple of months for the EU to be able to sign ACTA. After the signature, the European Parliament will have to vote its consent of ACTA,"

Of course, this is not a complete rejection of ACTA, but it is a reprieve. It also sounds as though all the other countries listed will be signing, including the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Korea, Morocco and Singapore. That's a pretty bold move by the Obama administration, considering the evidence that signing ACTA in this manner without Senate approval is unconstitutional. I guess actually expecting the president to follow the Constitution is only important when you're not in office. Once you get there, all bets are off...

Great....

Looks like there's only two types of politicians in the USA

Well fed corporate puppets, and those who wish they were well fed corporate puppets. Hey, I voted for the SOB, and am now experiencing buyer's remorse, so I ain't a tea-bagging hater. Just disappointed, pissed off, and looking for change - really meaningful change, and not just changing the riders on the same flea-infested, drugged up horse.

I've always been an independent, and have voted both party lines and sometimes third-party lines, so I have no ax to grind. What we have here, is a decades-long failure to communicate, and for me, communicating consists of speaking truthfully to others, and nothing else. If you say one thing, and do another, that is not communication, but is hypocrisy and/or lying, possibly both. I would vote for a two-headed baboon with rabies and scabies before I'd vote for the incumbent or any of the current front runners. At least you'd know what the hell you're dealing with if it wins! This pack of losers - liars and prevaricators all, each and every one, without exception!

If this keeps up much longer, the pitchfork, torch and tumbrel club may be meeting at the Washington Monument soon.

Mike bags tea for a living

You silly far right wing bastards need to just admit that Obama can do no wrong. We all know you're hiding some Conservative conspiracy here. Is your little friend DH running for an office as a Republican next year?

Re:

To borrow the quote from the Nathan Fillion post...

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

I'd rather be on the right side than the winning side any day. And what do you really win by truncating the rights of citizens? Your legislation will do nothing to stop dedicated file-sharers and will only harm innocent people. All it will achieve in the end is less respect for copyright and less respect for the industry that won't adapt. You think you're making progress, but all you're doing is digging your grave a little deeper. You'd do everyone a favor, yourself included, if you'd just climb into it and get it over with.

Poor me! I don't have enough control over governments!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!! They don't immediately and unquestionably do everything I say and hence I have no voice!! I can get them to pass 95+ year copy protection lengths and to retroactively extend such anti-copy privileges, but since I can't get them to immediately do everything I tell them, that means I'm not even being heard. Me, the little guy, is getting ignored and stomped on by the big bad bloggers and critics who are controlling everything!! Woe is me. As the little guy, I need some representation too you know.

Re: Mike bags tea for a living

Its not right.

In Canada, some recent polls are showing 87% of the country is against these laws. If they pass them, its just another nail in their coffin. We have pretty much been taken prisoner by the current government, which enjoys a slim majority and almost no opposition party. They are dismantling Canada brick by brick and there are a great many of us that are growing more and more willing to start fighting back hard.

Re: Re: Re:

I got the memo to not feed the trolls. But I find you amusing, so I will. After ACTA, 3 Strikes, jail time, and ICE, all your side has left is putting people to death for copyright infringement. That didn't work in the past, it will not work now. You have gotten everything you have asked for.

Enjoy your victory. I am rooting for you to succeed ... you are about to piss of the entire internet using world. All 2.25 billion of us.

Re: Whatever...

Re:

I agree. If he tries to make this an "executive agreement" then it should have NO force of law. Anything else would just about give the President sole control over everything, as he could just enter an "executive agreement" with the Cayman Islands or Micronesia to pass whatever was on his agenda.

The President has full control over the executive branch, appoints federal judges (and a lot of other people), is commander in chief, has veto power over legislation, and is the only one who can sign treaties. Is this not enough power? Is it too much to want the Senate to actually have to ratify those treaties, like the Constitution specfies?

Re: Its not right.

Re: Re:

*blinks*

ya know, that's only Slightly more power than the monarchy has in NZ. (in that there are limits on just Who can be appointed for the top executive jobs and i'm not sure exactly how much imput they have into the judiciary since our parliament somehow did an end run around the fact that the privy council (basically stand ins for the monarch as final court of appeal much as the GG is as head of the executive) after they had the nerve to rule Against the government. (somehow passed a law, (and how the Fuck the GG at the time thought signing it was in the best interest of Queen OR country, i don't know. should have been immediately replaced for that one, at best. *ponders* that may or may not have been when we somehow had a republican GG. i don't know how the fuck that happens.) that replaced the Privy council with a high court here in NZ... which was under the thumb of parliament... where do i sign up to become a cavalier again?)

i lost track of my nested parenthesis.... hopefully this is intelligible.

yes, it's angry rant on the state of the NZ government as compared to it's constitution. again. move along.

Re: Re:

We are neither innovative nor resourceful. We're too busy worrying about copyrights and patents and how we could squeeze out a couple more cents by clamping them down as hard as possible 'till all innovation and resources are squeezed out of the country.